Sabtu, 25 September 2010

Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood’s unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70’s made for TV movie bad.

Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don’t really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren’t thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?

Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.

Eddie Murphy? What genius thought up this lame script? Sure, they toss in a dozen homages to the original ride, but Disney flubbed a golden opportunity to create a classic film. Don’t take one of the most-beloved rides from Disneyland/World, and come up with a sub-par comedy, with smart-mouthed kids, and a jabbering Eddie Murphy.Tech credits are great, though.Don’t be fooled by the DVD’s claim of a “Virtual Ride of The Haunted Mansion.” I was expecting a recap of the actual park attraction, but was instead treated to a tour of the movie set.Also, Disney….why not just AVOID crude jokes and profanity in this type of family film? The scares alone garner the rating you desire. Don’t dumb this down when it’s not necessary. Have you not learned ANYTHING since “Watcher in the Woods”?

The general plot line of stranded individuals in any particular setting is nothing new to Hollywood, as we have seen many marooned protagonists go up against mother nature, blood thirsty villains, and both fictitious and very real beasts alike. However, of all the places we have seen films set in, the grand canyon is mostly new. With a fresh setting we should have endless possibilities and plenty of room for an exciting and unconventional script. Unfortunately, ‘The Canyon’ cannot capitalize on it’s sources. The final product that director Richard Harrah presents us with is nothing short of boring film-making, extremely grating ‘come on’ moments, erroneous use of wolves, and a very empty script. The actors are very talented and do what they can with the material, but not even talented actors can save a script that is as empty, dry, and desolate as the grand canyon itself. There are a few shining moments, but not enough to carry this movie into the entertaining zone. There is a nice gore scene (that will surely make anyone who watches it wince), the scenery is put to very beautifully shot aesthetic use, and of course nicely acted moments that accurately evoke the hopelessness of the situation and sometimes are even ironically witty. Notice that I have yet to mention the word ‘thrilling’ or ‘thriller’, which is extremely sad because this movies is obviously supposed to be just that – a thriller. ‘The Canyon’ simply can’t cut it as a thriller and is obviously too straight forward to be anything else. Avoid this one just as you would avoid going into the grand canyon with a guide who could possibly double as the homeless guy who shines shoes outside of your office.